Letter: The deck is stacked for the rich

Cal Thomas’ column of Oct. 17 blames the American citizenry for our federal debt because we are irresponsible, feel entitled and expect the government to take care of us. I disagree.

I recently attended a lecture at Kansas State University by Edward Wolff, an economics professor from New York University. He spoke about rising income inequality in the United States over the past 40 to 50 years. The top 10 percent of earners in the U.S. make 50 percent of the income. Wolff also showed that societies with high inequality have low economic mobility, meaning people born rich stay rich and those born poor stay poor. People of humble origins who become rich are the exception, not the rule.

Wolff showed many graphs proving that the rich have been getting richer while middle and lower class workers have had stagnant or declining incomes in real dollars. He also showed why. The 1970s had a confluence of events, such as increasing international trade, changing technology, oil crises, weakening of unions, etc., that contributed. However, the most significant trend was the decline over decades in income taxes on the wealthy from an unreasonable high of 92 percent in 1955 to a low of 28 percent during President George W. Bush’s administration. In short, the rise in inequality has not been due to a surge in laziness or the expectation of government handouts but rather is due to successful lobbying by the rich to stack the deck in their favor. Our government’s staggering debt is partly due to the failure to tax the rich enough. We also must reduce government spending but shouldn’t do so on the backs of our poorest and most vulnerable.

Thomas and other conservatives suffer from the delusion the rich are all self-made and therefore more deserving. Wolff showed that was not the case. The smugness of people like Thomas, who imagine those who stock grocery store shelves, clean motel rooms and do countless other low-paying jobs are lacking industriousness, responsibility and moral fiber, is nauseating.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Great letter. Unfortunately liberals need to believe others are greedy, racist, and don't deserve anything they have. If you work hard and have any success it's because you are exploiting somebody else or it's at someone else's expense. It's impossible to have success without their guidance or the governments "help". You are better off subjugating yourself to their hand outs and feel good programs designed to cultivate their voting base. It helps feed their overly emotional, whiney, delusional fantasies.

We all found it funny in 2004 that John Kerry wanted to represent the poor while wind surfing on the Atlantic... on the shore of Martha's Vineyard, which as a noun is only known to us little people as a party place for the rich in the summer.
...and now the Obamas vacation there.

I was born poor, but now consider myself upper middle class. What's the deal with that? Oh yeah, hard work, that's it. Hey, maybe the govt should make a law forcing me to give up my money so I'm not above anyone else. Kinda like Obamacare. Wreck the 80 to 90 percent of people that liked their insurance so that we can pay for the 10 to 20 percent who don't. Why didn't we just expand Medicad enough to help this small percentage and leave the rest of us alone?

But I think we disagree as to who the actual power players are. They are neither Dems nor the GOP. They only want one thing - all the power. Money means nothing. But a populace with money is a threat to their thirst for power. So they take it away little by little with higher taxes and a distribution of wealth.

American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism: "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

a Swiss public referendum, this time on providing a monthly income to every citizen, no strings attached. Every month, every Swiss person would receive a check from the government, no matter how rich or poor, how hardworking or lazy, how old or young. Poverty would disappear. Economists, needless to say, are sharply divided on what would reappear in its place — and whether such a basic-income scheme might have some appeal for other, less socialist countries too."

We all know communism didn't work. And, in history, there have been communal experiments that tended to go belly-up. There have also been successful businesses based on democratic models where everyone in the organization shared equally in the profits and contributed to the company. In the Middle Ages there were monastic communities who found themselves making gobs of money off their production.

It isn't like the models we're familiar with are all there is. If we get stuck in our memes and dogmas, we can't rethink what we're doing or how we're doing it. In many ways, the last two centuries were experimental in America and really the world. We've seen right-wing fascists and left-wing communists create nightmares that imploded.

I tend to think that any system that goes too far right or too far left will self-destruct. But we can't ignore the concept of "all...are created equal, with certain inalienable rights." The success of the Scandinavian "socialism" models means that capitalism and socialism can be melded. You can have your cake and eat it too. But as long as America's parties continue to go to extremes, we'll never find that balanced symbiosis. We'll keep on going through these booms and busts that a place like Canada, with its system, has not yet experienced.

Times are changing, though. "Behold, I make all things new." Rev. 21: 5

The rich pay there fair share to the government. Maybe they want to hang on to what they have created through there own efforts because the government wastes lots of the money they give and then bashes them because they think they don't pay there fair share. They can't win.

What about the bottom feeders who pay no income taxes and are to lazy to get off there butt to work and pay there fair share. They just want there free lunch from the government. Enough said.

these days. It's very popular with the liberals to somehow show that because some people are successful and some people fail then the answer is to take it from those who succeed and give it to those who don't.

Somebody should invent a system of government that operates under that philosophy. Something like from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs. That sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? That would sure fix that nasty old problem of income inequality. Those darn rich people would just have to share the money they stole from all the poor people.

I wonder why nobody has thought of that yet? Oh wait, I remember. Somebody did. His name was Karl Marx. And his system of government forced equality is know as Communism.

Seems to have worked pretty well for Chairman Mao in China. He called it the Peoples Republic of China. It led to the death of 40-70 million people.

Or for Joseph Stalin. His system of central government planning (modern example would be obamacare) resulted in the death of 20 million.

But hey, you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omlet. Which is better, freedom to prosper and succeed by your own efforts, or more fairly, "spread the wealth around" as our current president suggested?

American Heritage Dictionary definition of fascism: "...a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

caste systems. I was thinking this morning about the Christian mindset that is informed by a concept of monarchy (Jesus as the ultimate king and sovereign). That mindset predisposes the Christian community to reject forms of democracy experimented with since the Enlightenment and to also reject the overthrowing of despicable and ruinous monarchies. Then we saw the rise of dictatorships that we still struggle with today, and autocrats like Mubarrak.

The European system of the Dark Ages was despotic monarchs over a feudal society (the very wealthy and the peasantry -- entrenched inequality). And the church sidled up to the monarchs and the rich. It was a "system" that kind of evolved from Constantine's embrace of Christianity from his throne of power. He was looking for a Pax Romana -- an equality of pagans and Christians who later transformed into emperor-popes.

The Modern Age began to dissolve those systems through revolutions and the rise of science. Those 500 years were a kind of age of fundamentalism, with we/they thinking. Everything was being distilled to its simplest form. Generally, people were looking for absolutes, universal laws, dogmas to cling to in a relativistic universe. E=Mc2.

Now technology is changing the playing field and old orders will fade rapidly. In moments like this, chaos ensues. The world is in transition and the old assumptions are shaking. Evil hasn't gone away. Greed hasn't gone away.

America can't stagnate. We can't just keep beating our heads up against walls dictated by our old fundamentalist assumptions. In science, they call this kind of moment the "critical mass." You can't hold the tide of change back any longer. You can't hold back the ocean with a pitchfork.

So the massive inequality now established in the world won't hold up. You can't have insanely rich people surrounded by billions of people living threadbare existences. It's unnecessary; it's stupid; and it's fatalistic. It is a dysfunctional system that can't endure.

My thoughts on why we are stretched thin financially in the middle class and "working poor":

1. Too much government involvement and over regulation. It means that us commoners can't start businesses because the "rules" are established by rich who have access to the president and congress, from both parties.

2. High cost of labor in the US caused by unions. Sadly, while most people think wages can be dictated by congress in the form of minimum wage, it simply leads to an increase in prices for goods and services generally consumed and provided by minimum wage earners.

3. All of us are enamored with over spending on wants instead of just meeting needs. Look around you.....do we need smart phones, unlimited data plans, HD TV and high speed internet? Family vacations, worlds of fun trips, going out to eat daily - things that used to be rare and special when I was growing up - are now commonplace. I KNOW several people receiving public assistance that attend more Chiefs and Royals games, concerts, etc that I don't attend because I have determined that my money should support my family's needs, now and future.

Here is the common thread in our welfare nation - when you GIVE people in our country something for free, they have NO appreciation for it. Just like spoiling a child. We all know this but liberals are willing to accept massive government waste by millions that DON'T need help to get assistance for ten people that DO need it.

Is Alan Lunn having a contest with that Slash guy/girl to see who can type the longest most tiresome nonsense possible? They have quite the race going. Then again Alan Lunn might be the unicorn. A flaming liberal quoting bible verses.

by a former school teacher that turned to real-estate development.
He Built Sanibel Harbour resort One of his largest projects and countless shopping centers.
He is the Nicest, most Charitable person I know.
My father in law is another Rich person that every year would volunteer at the Food bank Thanks Giving and Christmas dinners for the less fortunate.
and He has given away Hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Both of them started out with nothing but a Dream.
( And a GOOD Dose of Ambition)

And yes Most of them are Republicans.
Your assessment of the Rich is a myth rooted in envy itself.

Nobody's saying that people with that kind of money aren't charitable.

You can be sure, however, that they don't give away their money without good reason. You can also be sure that they alone are not responsible for their own fortune. You can't say that dreams and ambition alone got them to where they are. It's a good place to start, though.

I am not poor nor am I rich. I'm confortable. I also don't think the rich should be taxed more than I am. If I pay 27%, the rich should only have to pay the same and no more. I have not heard a reasonable explanation as to why they should. Jealousy and because they have more are not good reasons.
For what it's worth, Saddly I paid more in taxes the many Corporations. ANY Corporation that does business in the United States should pay their share of taxes, I don't care where their "Headquarters" are. We lose BILLIONS in Corporate taxes. That would fix a lot. Good Luck getting their, million dollar lobbyists, under control though.

The more wealth you have, the more resources you have used to gain it, and the more resources you use to gain more. A progressive taxation scheme necessarily taxes the wealthy more because they rely more heavily on the country's resources in order to gain more wealth.

So what you're saying is "you didn't build that, somebody else built that"? The infamous line from your president?

It's just class warfare nonsense to claim that the wealthy only played a partial role in their own success. That's based on envy and greed. When that claim is made, it allows the lib/prog/socialists to lay claim to part of the wealthy person's money guilt free.

Successful people for the most part are successful because they work hard, invest well, take risks and do things most of us wouldn't consider because of the risk.

Perhaps the growing gap between wealthy and poor in this country has some other factors to consider. Such as growing numbers of youths dropping out of school, joining gangs, not applying themselves, not working. The growing number of children growing up without fathers. Growing numbers of drug addicts, drug abusers and various other self disabling people. Growing numbers of people who turn to the government and their fellow citizens to support them in part or in total. Growing numbers of people who neglect their own health to the point they are unable to work.

That scale is tipping heavily in that direction. One reason there are so many wealthy people getting wealthier is there are so many people that don't even try. This claim that somehow they have an unfair advantage just doesn't hold water.

Just looking at this on the surface and proclaiming the old income inequality chestnut is just a lazy way of justifying taking what others have and not feeling guilty. What other people earn, if aquired legally is theirs. They have no obligation to give it away. But the fact is most charities are funded by wealthy people. The 5 bucks a paycheck you give to United Way doesn't pay for much of anything. Look at the lists of charitible giving by the wealthy. Look sometime at what the evil Koch brothers give to schools, hospitals and other worthy causes. It might surprise you.

I think a lot of you missed the point of the letter. Researchers and Economists have collected TONS of data over decades showing that upward social mobility is becoming a thing of the past. In other words--those born wealthy overwhelmingly stay wealthy throughout their lives. And those born poor or middle class overwhelmingly stay poor or middle class, generally regardless of "how hard they work" or "levels of ambition." It makes perfect sense--the wealthy can afford to pay for the best schools for their kids and pass on the successful business to them (or have connections placing them in a successful job). The poor and middle class do not have that luxury. Citing your own personal experience or success story cannot logically be applied to the entire population.

This is absolutely NOT to say that wealthy people don't work hard or deserve what they earn--it just means that they have the luxury of a huge head start over those born less fortunate.

Nobody claims they don't use the highways and the internet and the banking system etc.

The people that create wealth also create jobs as a byproduct. That seems like a good trade off for the rest of us.

So what does that mean? Does a portion of their wealth belong to the rest of us because they used our highways?

Seems to me that since the top 10% of wage earners already pay over 70% of all the taxes paid while the bottom 50% pay less than 10% that the distribution is already pretty fair.

But the wealthy don't become wealthy because the government built the highways. It is because they are smart, they take chances and they make good decisions.

The building it on your own makes no sense. Steve Jobs could have used any number of different people to code his software, build his hardware, market his product. That group is pretty interchangable. But without Steve Jobs, Apple would still be a small time computer wanna be company that employed a few people and struggled to survive.

So it seems like Steve Jobs built Apple. Without him, they don't exist. Did he have help? Of course. But that help was of a support nature. Steve Jobs is the reason Apple is what they are. So Steve Jobs built Apple.